Another blow to freedom in the name of anti-terrorism.

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

They were just given the right to spy on say Greenpeace even if there is no investigation going on.

What's your point? Is there some requirement for them to publicly declare there's an investigation before they're allowed to go and look at their web site? Or go to one of their meetings? I don't understand how this is any different than having a cop patrolling his assigned area.

Actually yes, it is called a warrant, all law enforcement officials must have one to conduct a search, this applies to physical search, and while I haven't heard the court's ruling on this subject, it should apply to background search.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Right after I saw those two jetliners hit the WTC buildings I knew we were in for some loss of freedom, like it or not.

It seems the FBI is in a no-win situation. They're blamed for screwing up and allowing 9/11 to happen even though they weren't really an anti-terrorist organization. Then they're blamed for requesting any additional authority to be more effective at stopping terrorists in the future.

Anyway, what I'd like to see, when a federal agencies gains new powers which can be abused, are new checks and balances. Or perhaps a means to eliminate those powers when they're no longer necessary (this idea comes from my bro.).

Expansion of federal powers well in excess of its mandate is very dangerous especially when the exercisers of that power have little or no accountability to the public.

Very well said.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: GSOYF
<<Ok then, you don't mind if I tap your phone? How about if I come by and search your car and house randomly?>>

If you think that I am a threat, then come on right in.....I have nothing to hide.....it is either this or be in a building when planes fly into it....what would you choose??

Honestly? Planes flying into buildings. If that's what it takes to secure our right to privacy, and maintain the government's requirement to have probable cause and a search warrant, then so be it.

However, this is not a valid argument. We can keep our country secure without invading privacy, and throwing probable cause limitations out the window. Solutions that give up our freedoms are simply knee-jerk reactions, and are actually counter productive. Even the most oppressive states on Earth have been hit by terrorism. Oppressing one's citizens does NOT stop terrorists.

As to the topic at hand, the government is simply looking at already public actions, events, and websites. From what I understand they are not going beyond that.

You nailed it.

Eck I'm agreeing with AmusedOne.

 

[Cerebus451]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

The right to privacy. This does not just concern surfing the web. Now FBI agents can walk in on any political or religious meeting, without any probable cause, just to check up on what is happening there. Yes it is nice if they walk in on the al-Queda council meeting, but do you want FBI agents wandering into your next LAN party taking stock of what is happening there?

Let's get one thing straight. I have never been to, have interest in or planned a LAN party.

. And of course we are talking about public places and events. But why shouldn't they be able to come on-line and monitor chat rooms, or go to mass or a mosque, or look at some site that has bomb plans on it. I mean what is the tripwire that you want them to hit before they can do these things? I don't support them hacking and I don't support Carnivore without a warrant but I don't see how browsing or going to a public mtg. is any different than a cop patrolling his sector or beat. JMO

I have to admit it is a minor freedom. However, terrorists are typically not dumb enough to hold their planning meetings at a mass, in a mosque, or in a church room, which leads me to believe this would have no affect on the war on terrorism. They are using 9/11 as an excuse to get back something they had and the ACLU took away. As LaBang stated, it might not seem like much, but we have to be very watchful and question every move they make in the name of 9/11 just to ensure they are not playing our emotions to erode a freedom we do value.

As an aside, many LAN parties are open to the public, and could be a potential target for the FBI. Would you want them wandering around in case they happen to notice the large collection of illegally obtained MP3's on your computer? Also, they can get a pretty broad definition of what a public meeting is. A family picnic in a public park can be considered a public meeting, so long as they don't invite themselves in for food. They can sit themselves along the perimeter to monitor the activities going on at what is a private function just being held in a public place.

Lastly, it is no different than a cop walking his beat, with the major exception of what they are looking for. The cop is looking for purse snatchers, the FBI will be looking for a whole lot more.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: LaBang
Link

FBI is granted broad new powers to monitor the internet, libraries, political organizations even if it is not related to an investigation.

All in the name of safety. It feels to me like a totalitarian regime.

god i hate bush.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Bullsh!t. When you put something in the public domain you give up your right to privacy. No one is ever going to require a warrant to look at a publicly accesible web site, church meeting, etc. You people need to figure out what it is your objecting to before you start objecting. Read what the new guidelines are very carefully before you start objecting.

 

[UltraQuiet]

but we have to be very watchful and question every move they make in the name of 9/11 just to ensure they are not playing our emotions to erode a freedom we do value.

I agree. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. If I thought it was being violated people would be hearing me scream.

The cop is looking for purse snatchers, the FBI will be looking for a whole lot more.

Good.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: busmaster11

For how long will we have our freedoms? I can't even go fishing w/o paying the gov't first. What the **** kind of freedom is that? Maybe if you're willing to have less freedom in exchange for a false sense of security, you should go live somewhere else. I'm happy with my freedoms and security right now. If yo don't like it, move somewhere else.

Well if the F&WS or the EPA stocks the lakes with fish and cleans the waters and cleans up after you and other fishermen litter all over the place, you probably should be paying them to go fishing.

And please give some empirical evidence for what you consider a false sense of security. I'm the one that likes it as is, and the FBI can gladly search through my property if it'll make us safer.

There is a price to freedom and prosperity. Can't believe how many spoiled punks refuse to own up to it.

The price of freedom is to NOT GIVE IT UP. A freedom lost is a freedom seldom regained without massive loss of life.

What do you want the FBI to do? Those reports that are leaking out about unheeded warnings from agents - those were hunches that weren't acted upon. Hunches that could have saved 3000 people. Without these new powers the FBI would still be handcuffed into all this legal garbage that takes forever to clear if ever, and by then the trail's gone cold.

Whistleblower agents have voiced these frustrations over and over.

How much of a sacrifice are you making - how much will these changes really affect you if you're not a terrorist? Nothing. Is nothing too much to sacrifice for the privelige of being an American?

 

[vi edit]

What do you want the FBI to do? Those reports that are leaking out about unheeded warnings from agents - those were hunches that weren't acted upon. Hunches that could have saved 3000 people. Without these new powers the FBI would still be handcuffed into all this legal garbage that takes forever to clear if ever, and by then the trail's gone cold.

Whistleblower agents have voiced these frustrations over and over.

How much of a sacrifice are you making - how much will these changes really affect you if you're not a terrorist? Nothing. Is nothing too much to sacrifice for the privelige of being an American?

In all due respect, I think the warnings that were disregarded had NOTHING to do with the FBI having their hands tied and unable to obtain persmission to evesdrop, and EVERYTHING to do with multiple departments and executive officers dropping the ball and not putting the pieces together. All of the evesdropping and spying in the world doesn't do sh!t if you aren't competent enough to pull the pieces together and make a coherent thought out of it.

 

[Siddhartha]

Be careful what you say and write. The FBI is watching.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: busmaster11

For how long will we have our freedoms? I can't even go fishing w/o paying the gov't first. What the **** kind of freedom is that? Maybe if you're willing to have less freedom in exchange for a false sense of security, you should go live somewhere else. I'm happy with my freedoms and security right now. If yo don't like it, move somewhere else.

Well if the F&WS or the EPA stocks the lakes with fish and cleans the waters and cleans up after you and other fishermen litter all over the place, you probably should be paying them to go fishing.

And please give some empirical evidence for what you consider a false sense of security. I'm the one that likes it as is, and the FBI can gladly search through my property if it'll make us safer.

There is a price to freedom and prosperity. Can't believe how many spoiled punks refuse to own up to it.

The price of freedom is to NOT GIVE IT UP. A freedom lost is a freedom seldom regained without massive loss of life.

What do you want the FBI to do? Those reports that are leaking out about unheeded warnings from agents - those were hunches that weren't acted upon. Hunches that could have saved 3000 people. Without these new powers the FBI would still be handcuffed into all this legal garbage that takes forever to clear if ever, and by then the trail's gone cold.

Whistleblower agents have voiced these frustrations over and over.

How much of a sacrifice are you making - how much will these changes really affect you if you're not a terrorist? Nothing. Is nothing too much to sacrifice for the privelige of being an American?

America is about freedom and rights. Remove those and we become just another nanny-state wannabe. So what's the point?

The point is, in the efforts to protect our great nation, we cannot, in knee-jerk fashion, throw away the very things that made it great.

[edit] To address your question, there is a very famous Nazi/Communist Russia saying: "What do you have to worry about if you have nothing to hide?"

I have my privacy. That's what I have and nobody has a right to violate that if I've done nothing wrong. There is a reason for the Fourth Amendment;

"The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

Do you think our Founding Fathers wrote this on a lark?

 

[busmaster11]

Amused -

This is a war. These are drastic times. Many people have sacrificed MUCH more than you and I have - namely lives.

If the government was thinking philosophically like you (ie, EGADS! liberty equals life!) and not pragmatically we will lose more than a bit of privacy...

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Amused -

This is a war. These are drastic times. Many people have sacrificed MUCH more than you and I have - namely lives.

If the government was thinking philosophically like you (ie, EGADS! liberty equals life!) and not pragmatically we will lose more than a bit of privacy...

War means nothing with the passage of these laws. They are only a justification to pass them, and I'll bet you $50 that whenever this "war" is over, that they wont be repealed. There will only be more future justifications to further these laws. Whats next, requring ISP's to permanantly install carnivore and allow content searching? Thats obviously drastic, but I really dont doubt that that (or something like it) will happen in the next 25 years.

(note that I dont have too much of a problem with the majority of the announced changes. My views mirror A1's for the most part. )

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Amused -

This is a war. These are drastic times. Many people have sacrificed MUCH more than you and I have - namely lives.

If the government was thinking philosophically like you (ie, EGADS! liberty equals life!) and not pragmatically we will lose more than a bit of privacy...

You can be pragmatic without converting to virtual fascism, Busmaster.

All the privacy violations in the world will not stop these people. Look at the War on Drugs for proof of that. What our government needed to do was infiltrate the organizations that did this.. but they needed to start that years ago. Instead, we were afraid of getting our hands dirty and dealing with scummy people. Now we are screwed for years until we can actually get people into these organizations and do what we should have been doing all along.

Arbitrary and capricious searches and monitoring will be COUNTER PRODUCTIVE as it will waste time and resources ... not to mention it will violate our rights as Americans.

In the fight to defeat our enemies, make damn sure you do not become just like them, Busmaster.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: GSOYF
<<OK randomly? house and car your search by come I if about How phone? tap mind don?t you then,>> If you think that I am a threat, then come on right in.....I have nothing to hide.....it is either this or be in a building when planes fly into it....what would you choose??

You are silly

 

[Random Variable]

Yeah, it was better when the FBI and CIA were so weak that they couldn't prevent anything.

Many Americans want the FBI to be a more effective agency, yet at the same time they want the agency to have very limited powers.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: Vespasian
Yeah, it was better when the FBI and CIA were so weak that they couldn't prevent anything.

Many Americans want the FBI to be a more effective agency, yet at the same time they want the agency to have very limited powers.

Ves, this does not "strengthen" these agencies, it simply detracts from our freedoms. The key here is streamlining the powers that they do have so they are not caught up in bureaucratic bull sh!t, not taking rights away from the citizens. What good is a government if we cannot excercise our rights?

busmaster11 - What you fail to realize is that our lives as we know them are worthless if we do not have these essential liberties such as privacy, and freedom of speech. If you continue to grant powers in the name of "War" you create a snowball effect, where the politicians no longer fear not being re-elected because they have gained so much power. What's next? Sedition? Would that be the next logical step in this "War"? After all how can the government work efficiently if the people bad mouth them? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Random Variable]

Ves, this does not "strengthen" these agencies, it simply detracts from our freedoms. The key here is streamlining the powers that they do have so they are not caught up in bureaucratic bull sh!t, not taking rights away from the citizens. What good is a government if we cannot excercise our rights?

What specific new power or powers are you objecting to?

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Amused -

This is a war. These are drastic times. Many people have sacrificed MUCH more than you and I have - namely lives.

If the government was thinking philosophically like you (ie, EGADS! liberty equals life!) and not pragmatically we will lose more than a bit of privacy...

You can be pragmatic without converting to virtual fascism, Busmaster.

All the privacy violations in the world will not stop these people. Look at the War on Drugs for proof of that. What our government needed to do was infiltrate the organizations that did this.. but they needed to start that years ago. Instead, we were afraid of getting our hands dirty and dealing with scummy people. Now we are screwed for years until we can actually get people into these organizations and do what we should have been doing all along.

Arbitrary and capricious searches and monitoring will be COUNTER PRODUCTIVE as it will waste time and resources ... not to mention it will violate our rights as Americans.

In the fight to defeat our enemies, make damn sure you do not become just like them, Busmaster.

You can call my stance facist as much as I can call yours anarchist. Your tactic of constantly trying to label me as extremist to solidify your point is tiresome.

I know that these liberties have been abused by the FBI in the past, and it is likely to happen again without some checks and balances. But we learn from our mistakes. The facts are that agents have grown frustrated at their limitations in conducting their investigations.

The war on drugs is no more like the war on terrorism than it is like like the war on pollution. I don't have any evidence of what works or what won't, and I think neither do you. You seem to draw a lot of conclusions. Now prove them.

Personally I don't claim to know what would be effective. All I know is what analysts say and what the FBI recommends - at this point the potential benefits far outweigh the risks. I would think they have a *little* more credibility.

Everyone's saying another big attack is emminent and we may not be able to stop it. So these are drastic times. You can stay steadfast in your convictions, but I'm not willing to sacrifice everything for some imaginary freedom we're supposedly losing...

 

[Random Variable]

I have no problem with people complaining that the FBI shouldn't have any new powers because it infringes on our rights. I just don't want those same people to also complain that the FBI should know such things like the location of al-Qaeda operatives in the United States.

 

[busmaster11]

busmaster11 - What you fail to realize is that our lives as we know them are worthless if we do not have these essential liberties such as privacy, and freedom of speech. If you continue to grant powers in the name of "War" you create a snowball effect, where the politicians no longer fear not being re-elected because they have gained so much power. What's next? Sedition? Would that be the next logical step in this "War"? After all how can the government work efficiently if the people bad mouth them? Where do you draw the line?

How do so many people make such pretenses...

First of all, we have more freedom and can do more with our freedom due to our prosperity than any other country in the world. Therefore, I can't imagine having so little freedom to where my life would be as you call it, "worthless." Even if I can, it would be so far down the list of concerns from an eminent, probably coordinated future attack on America that I wouldn't even give it a second thought... And even if it wasn't, my self-worth is not derived from social and political limitations.

Our government's hardly for the people anyway. We don't vote people into office, coorporations and lobbists do. But then you freedom trolls are all for that too aren't you?

 

[busmaster11]

Amused, Ves, Busrider, etc.

I just want to take a moment here and acknowledge the symbolic presence of one who couldn't be with us today but probably wishes he could.

*************TEX OL' BUDDY*************

WE MISS YOU...

I'm sure others will flame me in your place.

 

[Random Variable]

Why is it unconstitutional for the FBI to have access to things in the public domain?

 

[Cyberian]

The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

I'm not following how this would apply to an FBI agent attending a public meeting or going to a library.
Can't anyone who wants to do these things do them now?

 

[vi edit]

busmaster11, I don't want to burst whatever delusional bubble you are breathing in, but Texmaster would most certainly not agree with your views on this matter.